Western Journal of Communication

Vol. 69, No. 4, October 2005, pp. 359–376

Family Communication Schemata and

the Circumplex Model of Family
Functioning
Paul Schrodt
40pschrodt@ku.edu
Dr
University
00000October
Taylor of KansasDepartment
10.1080/10570310500305539
RWJC130536.sgm
1057-0314
Original
Western
2005
69 PaulSchrodt
and
Journal
States
Article 2005
(print)/1745-1027
Francis
Communication
of Ltd of Communication StudiesBailey Hall, Room 102, 1440 Jayhawk BoulevardLawrenceKS 66045-7574USA
Communication
(online)
Association

Using Koerner and Fitzpatrick’s general theory of family communication, this study
extends Olson’s circumplex model of family functioning by examining the degree to which
three dimensions of family communication schemata (i.e., expressiveness, structural tradi-
tionalism, and conflict avoidance) facilitate family cohesion and adaptability. Participants
included 426 young adults from first-marriage families who completed a series of survey
measures. Results indicated that family expressiveness was positively associated with family
cohesion and adaptability, whereas structural traditionalism and conflict avoidance were
inversely associated with both dimensions of family functioning. Collectively, all three
dimensions of family schemata accounted for 51% of the variance in family cohesion,
though expressiveness and avoidance emerged as the only significant predictors in the
model. Likewise, all three dimensions of family schemata accounted for 53% of the variance
in family adaptability, including an interaction effect of expressiveness and structural
traditionalism. Finally, discriminant analyses revealed that family expressiveness was
primarily responsible for distinguishing among different types of family systems.

Keywords: Circumplex Model; Cohesion; Adaptability; Family Communication;

Expressiveness; Structural Traditionalism; Conflict Avoidance

The circumplex model of marital and family systems (Olson, 1986, 2000; Olson,
Russell, & Sprenkle, 1983; Olson, Sprenkle, & Russell, 1979) represents one of the most
extensively used models of family functioning, both in clinical and academic settings

Paul Schrodt (PhD, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, 2003) is an Assistant Professor in the Department of
Communication Studies at the University of Kansas. This paper was presented as the Top Paper to the Interper-
sonal and Small Group Communication Interest Group at the annual meeting of the Central States Communica-
tion Association, Kansas City, MO. Correspondence to: Paul Schrodt, Assistant Professor, Department of
Communication Studies, University of Kansas, Bailey Hall, Room 102, 1440 Jayhawk Boulevard, Lawrence, KS
66045-7574, USA. Tel: +1 785 864 9868; Email: pschrodt@ku.edu

ISSN 1057–0314 (print)/ISSN 1745–1027 (online) © 2005 Western States Communication Association
DOI: 10.1080/10570310500305539
360 P. Schrodt
(Yahav, 2002). According to this model, families function in terms of cohesiveness, or
the ‘emotional bonding that family members have toward one another’ (Olson, 2000,
p. 145), and flexibility, which refers to the amount of change a family experiences in
terms of its leadership, role relationships, and relationship rules (Olson, 2000). The
third, and perhaps most important dimension in the model is communication, as
family communication is viewed as the dynamic component that aids or hinders family
movement along the other two dimensions (Olson et al., 1983; Perosa & Perosa, 2001).
Whereas positive communication skills, including clarity, empathy, and effective prob-
lem solving, are believed to facilitate healthy levels of family cohesion and flexibility, a
lack of communication skills is believed to inhibit the family system’s ability to change
when needed (Olson, 2000; Olson et al., 1983).
Despite the heuristic value of the circumplex model, however, researchers testing the
underlying assumptions behind the model have found inconsistent and/or inconclu-
sive results. For example, Perosa and Perosa (2001) recently examined a key hypothesis
from Olson’s model, namely, that cohesion and flexibility are curvilinearly related to
perceptions of family communication, and found little to no support for this hypoth-
esis. Instead, these researchers found strong, linear relationships among both dimen-
sions of family functioning and adolescent perceptions of family expressiveness, clarity,
and problem solving. Likewise, Perosa and Perosa (2001) identified a number of limi-
tations to extant research on family functioning and communication, among which
include faulty research designs, insider vs. outsider perceptions, distinctions among
first-order and second-order changes, and distinctions among clinical and nonclinical
families, to name a few. Perhaps the greatest criticism from a communication perspec-
tive, however, involves the tendency of researchers outside of the communication
discipline to over-simplify family communication and reduce it in form to ‘good’ or
‘bad’ communication, ‘positive’ or ‘negative’ communication skills. For example, in his
most recent articulation of the circumplex model, Olson (2000) contends that
‘balanced (family) systems tend to have very good communication, whereas unbal-
anced systems tend to have poor communication’ (p. 150). Although family research-
ers and clinicians have examined a few of the communication issues relevant to family
functioning (e.g., Anderson, 1986; Barnes & Olson, 1985; Johnson, 2002; Perosa &
Perosa, 2001), the tendency for most researchers has been to collapse key dimensions
of family communication into overall indices, thereby neglecting not only the unique
contributions that different beliefs about family communication provide in facilitating
family functioning, but the theoretical grounding provided in the family communica-
tion literature.
One theory that is particularly useful for examining the extent to which family
communication facilitates family functioning is Koerner and Fitzpatrick’s (2002a)
general theory of family communication. This theory focuses researchers’ attention on
the organized knowledge structures, or schemata, that family members use to commu-
nicate and exchange ideas. Koerner and Fitzpatrick’s (2002a) theory provides a useful
framework for extending the circumplex model by providing a much better detailed
description of the ways in which family communication environments facilitate family
cohesion and flexibility. Although previous researchers have established associations
 Western Journal of Communication 361
among family expressiveness and both dimensions of family functioning, much less is
known about other dimensions of family schemata that may or may not facilitate
family functioning (e.g., structural traditionalism and conflict avoidance). Conse-
quently, the primary purpose of this study is to extend the circumplex model by exam-
ining the degree to which family communication schemata facilitate family functioning
within the model.

The Circumplex Model and Family Communication

In their original articulation of the circumplex model, Olson et al. (1979, 1983)
suggested that cohesiveness and adaptability (later termed flexibility) are curvilinearly
related to positive family functioning, and that each consists of four levels. Accordingly,
overly cohesive (or enmeshed) families and under-cohesive (or disengaged) families are
problematic, whereas those that fall within the mid-range (separated or connected) are
considered optimal (Olson et al., 1983). Likewise, overly adaptive (or chaotic) and
under-adaptive (or rigid) families are problematic, whereas families that fall in the
mid-range (flexible or structured) are considered optimal. Using four levels for each
dimension, then, the circumplex model identified 16 different types of family systems,
which in turn could be re-classified into three general types: balanced, mid-range, and
extreme (or unbalanced) families.
Empirical research conducted with the initial circumplex model, however, yielded
inconsistent and mixed results (e.g., Farrell & Barnes, 1993; Perosa & Perosa, 2001).
Specifically, researchers have challenged the notion that cohesion and flexibility are
curvilinear dimensions, and there is increasing evidence to suggest that both dimen-
sions are, in fact, linearly related to optimal family functioning (e.g., Farrell & Barnes,
1993; Perosa & Perosa, 2001). In response to these criticisms, Olson and his colleagues
refined the circumplex model, as well as the primary survey instrument used to
measure cohesion and flexibility, the Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation
Scales (FACES). With each set of revisions, Olson (2000) gradually transformed the
circumplex model from a two-dimensional model to a three-dimensional model. In
doing so, Olson (2000) distinguished between first-order changes, or changes within a
family system (i.e., flexibility), and second-order changes, which involve change from
one system type to another. This, in turn, enabled the circumplex model to more accu-
rately reflect the dynamic similarity within the balanced and unbalanced types (Olson,
2000). More importantly, as part of the revised model, cohesion and flexibility are
conceptualized as linear dimensions—high scores on FACES cohesion and flexibility
scales are now indicative of balanced systems, whereas low scores on both dimensions
reflect unbalanced (or extreme) systems.
Throughout revisions to both the circumplex model and FACES (including four
different versions), Olson has maintained that balanced family systems have more
positive communication than unbalanced systems. Earlier reports found general
support for Olson’s initial model, namely that family cohesion and flexibility are curvi-
linearly related to family expressiveness and clarity (Anderson, 1986), and that
balanced family systems are more open and have less problems in communication than
362 P. Schrodt
unbalanced family systems (Barnes & Olson, 1985). Perosa and Perosa (2001),
however, recently critiqued investigations of communication within the circumplex
model and identified a number of limitations to extant research, including faulty
research designs, differences in perceptions of insiders vs. those of outsiders, and
distinctions among nonclinical and clinical families, to name a few. In response to these
limitations, Perosa and Perosa (2001) conducted a series of regression analyses
comparing the extent to which linear and curvilinear models of cohesion and flexibility
contributed to communication expressiveness, clarity, and problem solving. Over-
whelmingly, their results yielded linear relationships among both dimensions of family
functioning and all three communication constructs.
With one notable exception (i.e., Perosa & Perosa, 2001), then, previous investiga-
tions of communication and the circumplex model are somewhat suspect at best. Most
of the previous research has relied on over-simplified conceptualizations of family
communication, reducing it to simple ‘good’ or ‘bad’ evaluations of positive or nega-
tive communication. More importantly, family researchers have focused so much on
answering the ‘linear vs. curvilinear’ debate that the primary issue in question remains
unanswered—namely, what dimensions of family communication facilitate family
functioning and distinguish among different family system types? Although Olson
(2000) speculated that effective listening skills, speaking skills, self-disclosure, clarity,
and communicating respect facilitate optimal family functioning, relatively few
researchers have investigated these issues using the circumplex model. Of those studies
that do exist, most, if not all of them have analyzed cohesion and flexibility as predictors
of family communication, rather than as outcomes of family communication (e.g.,
Perosa & Perosa, 2001). In light of Olson’s (2000) hypotheses that communication
facilitates family functioning and that family systems can be differentiated on the basis
of their communication, it stands to reason, instead, that a family’s communication
environment may influence family cohesiveness and flexibility. Consequently, this
study employs Koerner and Fitzpatrick’s (2002a) general theory of family communica-
tion schemata to examine the extent to which family communication environments
facilitate family functioning.

Family Communication Schemata

Koerner and Fitzpatrick’s (2002a) theory of family communication is based on the
schematic representation of relational knowledge. Family communication schemata
are ‘knowledge structures that represent the external world of the family and provide a
basis for interpreting what other family members say and do’ (Fitzpatrick & Ritchie,
1994, p. 276). In other words, family communication schemata are cognitive frame-
works that guide individuals’ understandings of their relationships (Planalp, 1985).
Not only do shared schematic concepts permit individuals to communicate and
exchange ideas easily (Wicks, 1992), in the family, Koerner and Fitzpatrick (2002a)
proposed that ‘family communication behavior is largely the result of cognitive
processes that are determined by family relationship schemas’ (p. 87). The circumplex
model posits that communication facilitates optimal family functioning, which in turn
 Western Journal of Communication 363
leads to optimal psychological functioning for individual family members (Olson,
2000; Olson et al., 1979, 1983). Given the model’s initial focus on psychological func-
tioning, then, one might speculate that a theory grounded in the cognitive frameworks
(or schemata) family members use to communicate with each other may help further
explain the extent to which family communication facilitates family cohesiveness and
flexibility.
Fitzpatrick and Ritchie (1994) suggested that two lines of research have contributed
to family communication schemata: Fitzpatrick’s (1988) typology of married couples
and Ritchie’s (1991; Ritchie & Fitzpatrick, 1990) re-conceptualization of family
communication patterns research. More importantly, Fitzpatrick and Ritchie argued
that both the marital couple types and the views of parent–child interaction found in
the family communication patterns research (e.g., McLeod & Chaffee, 1972) reflect
underlying family communication schemata. In an effort to describe and assess these
schemata, Fitzpatrick and Ritchie (1994) conducted a factor analysis of items pertain-
ing to both marital and parent–child schemata, and subsequently developed the Family
Communication Environment Instrument (FCEI) by identifying three dimensions
that summarize individuals’ views of these family relationships. The first dimension
that emerged from their analysis was expressiveness, which represented a conversation
orientation in the family where children (and other family members) are encouraged
to openly express their ideas and feelings in the family. Structural traditionalism
emerged as the second factor, one which represented conventional beliefs about
marriage and part of a conformity orientation among parents and their children (i.e.,
where parents exercise power to ensure overt conformity from their children). The
third and final dimension, avoidance, emerged as the second part of a conformity
orientation in the family, one in which family members avoided conflict by either
suppressing unpleasant topics or by enforcing conformity (Fitzpatrick & Ritchie,
1994).
Not only did Fitzpatrick and Ritchie (1994) identify three key dimensions of family
communication schemata, their research also revealed that when family members do
share the same schema for family communication they also tend to demonstrate agree-
ment on a number of other dimensions of family life. As Fitzpatrick and Ritchie (1994)
hypothesized:

the size of the correlations between parent and child evaluations of the family struc-
ture as well as the level of cohesion were significantly larger in those families who
shared a family communication schemata than in those families who did not. (p. 297)

Likewise, families who shared a family communication environment were more likely
to have children who reported desiring the same level of expressiveness, traditionalism,
and conflict avoidance in their future marriage as modeled in their parents’ marriage.
Given the extent to which family members share a particular schema for family
communication, then, it stands to reason that family communication schemata may
facilitate family functioning in terms of cohesion and flexibility.
Although family researchers have yet to consider the extent to which family
communication schemata facilitate family functioning, there is evidence to suggest
364 P. Schrodt
such relationships may exist. For example, a number of scholars have already exam-
ined the associations among expressiveness, cohesion, and flexibility (e.g., Anderson,
1986; Barnes & Olson, 1985; Perosa & Perosa, 2001), and in general, expressiveness is
positively associated with family cohesion and flexibility. It is important to note,
however, that previous researchers have often resorted to collapsing key dimensions of
communication into overall indices in order to provide more reliable instruments. For
example, Perosa and Perosa (2001) recently combined a measure of expressiveness
with a measure of conflict expression/avoidance to create an overall measure of
communication expressiveness. Although these researchers based their decision on
methodological criteria, theoretically, Fitzpatrick and her colleagues (Fitzpatrick &
Ritchie, 1994; Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002a) have argued instead that expressiveness
and avoidance are two distinct constructs, with the first tapping a conversation orien-
tation in the family and the latter tapping part of a conformity orientation in the
family. Consequently, in the present study, expressiveness and avoidance are concep-
tualized as two related, but distinct dimensions of family communication schemata.
Consistent with previous research, then, the first two hypotheses predict positive asso-
ciations among family expressiveness and both dimensions of family functioning:

H1: Family expressiveness is positively associated with family cohesiveness.

H2: Family expressiveness is positively associated with family flexibility.

In terms of structural traditionalism and conflict avoidance, however, researchers

have yet to explore the associations among the remaining dimensions of family
communication schemata and dimensions of family functioning. Since Fitzpatrick
and Ritchie’s (1994) work, Koerner and Fitzpatrick (1997, 2002b) have focused
primarily on the influence of conversation and conformity orientations on actual
communication behaviors, such as the avoidance of conflict. Although their work
suggests that the behavioral avoidance of conflict is one outcome of different commu-
nication orientations in the family, there is more recent evidence to suggest that
conflict avoidance, in general, may also constitute a belief structure associated with a
conformity orientation in the family (e.g., Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002c). For exam-
ple, using Fitzpatrick and Ritchie’s (1994) FCEI, Caughlin (2003) found that all three
dimensions of family communication schemata were associated with different family
communication standards. In particular, structural traditionalism was positively asso-
ciated with standards for family discipline, whereas conflict avoidance was inversely
associated with standards for the expression of affection, the use of humor and
sarcasm, and regular routine interaction. Given Caughlin’s (2003) research and
Fitzpatrick and Ritchie’s (1994) contention that structural traditionalism and conflict
avoidance represent two dimensions of a conformity orientation in the family, in this
study, structural traditionalism and conflict avoidance are conceptualized as two
dimensions of the family communication environment which, by definition, should
be inversely associated with perceptions of family flexibility. Since previous research-
ers have reported positive, linear associations among perceptions of family flexibility
and cohesion (e.g., Anderson, 1986; Perosa & Perosa, 2001), then by extension one
might hypothesize that structural traditionalism and conflict avoidance are inversely
 Western Journal of Communication 365
associated with family cohesion as well. Thus, the next set of hypotheses is advanced
to test this line of reasoning:
H3: Structural traditionalism is inversely associated with family cohesiveness.
H4: Structural traditionalism is inversely associated with family flexibility.
H5: Conflict avoidance is inversely associated with family cohesiveness.
H6: Conflict avoidance is inversely associated with family flexibility.
A second, and perhaps more important goal of the present study was to determine
the extent to which family communication schemata contribute to both dimensions of
family functioning and provide a useful means for discriminating among different
family system types. Theoretically, one might hypothesize that each dimension
of family communication schemata, individually, is associated with family cohesion
and flexibility. Collectively, however, much less is known regarding how the three
dimensions combine to influence family cohesiveness and flexibility. Thus, the first
research question is advanced for consideration:
RQ1: How, if at all, do family communication schemata (i.e., expressiveness, struc-
tural traditionalism, and conflict avoidance) contribute to family functioning
(i.e., cohesion and flexibility)?
Finally, the circumplex model identifies 16 family system types using both dimensions
of family functioning. Although the model has undergone a number of revisions, the
basic premise that communication facilitates family functioning among the different
system types remains. Given this premise, then, one might speculate that family commu-
nication schemata help differentiate among family system types within the circumplex
model, though the extent and specific dimensions involved remains largely uninvesti-
gated. Consequently, a second research question is advanced for consideration:
RQ2: How well do family communication schemata (i.e., expressiveness, structural
traditionalism, and conflict avoidance) differentiate family system types
identified by the circumplex model?

Method
Participants
Participants were 426 young adult children from first-marriage families1 in the
Midwest, ranging in age from 18 to 24 with a mean age of 19.54 (SD = 1.31). Partici-
pants included 159 males and 267 females, most of whom were white (95.5%). In addi-
tion, 4.2% of the participants were only children, as most participants reported having
one sibling (35.4%), two siblings (34.0%), or three siblings at most (15.7%). Finally,
most participants were either first-born (39.4%) or second-born (33.8%) children in
their respective families.

Procedures
The researcher solicited direct participation from a variety of undergraduate students
at a large, Midwestern university. Participants completed a questionnaire on a volunteer
366 P. Schrodt
basis, and in classes where instructors granted permission, students were awarded mini-
mal class credit (less than 2%) for participation in the research. All participation took
place during regular class time, and students completed the questionnaire anony-
mously. After completing the survey, students were thanked for their participation and
debriefed.

Measures
Family communication schemata
Family communication schemata were operationalized using Fitzpatrick and Ritchie’s
(1994) Family Communication Environment Instrument (FCEI) (see Appendix A).
The FCEI is composed of 25 Likert-type items assessing participants’ perceptions of
family communication schemata across three dimensions: expressiveness, structural
traditionalism, and conflict avoidance. Responses were solicited using a five-point
scale ranging from 1 ‘strongly disagree’ to 5 ‘strongly agree.’ The FCEI is a valid and
reliable instrument, with previous researchers reporting alpha reliabilities ranging
from .71 to .94 for each of the three sub-scales (Caughlin, 2003; Fitzpatrick & Ritchie,
1994). In this study, the FCEI produced acceptable reliability estimates for each sub-
scale (see Table 1).

Family functioning
Family functioning was operationalized using Olson, Portner, and Bell’s (1982) Family
Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales II© (FACES II) (see Appendix B). As a
valid and reliable inventory developed from a national survey of over 1,140 families,
FACES II consists of 30 Likert-type items assessing participants’ perceptions of family
functioning across two dimensions: cohesion (16 items) and adaptability (or flexibil-
ity) (14 items). Responses were solicited using a five-point scale ranging from 1
‘strongly disagree’ to 5 ‘strongly agree.’ Consistent with Olson et al. (1982), total scores

Table 1 Descriptive Statistics and Pearson Product–Moment Correlations for All

Variables
Variables M SD α 1 2 3 4 5

1. Expressiveness 3.78 .70 .89 –

2. Structural traditionalism 3.10 .51 .65 −.25 –
3. Avoidance of conflict 2.27 .63 .68 −.39 .43 –
4. Family cohesiveness 61.31 9.53 .89 .71 −.24 −.37 –
5. Family flexibility 45.75a 7.44a .80 .68 −.36 −.29 .65 –

Note: All correlations are significant at p < .001.

aMean and standard deviation calculated using the original adaptability sub-scale of FACES II. Two items from

the original sub-scale were subsequently dropped prior to correlation analyses (revised M = 37.92, SD = 6.62, α
= .79).
 Western Journal of Communication 367
were calculated for cohesion and flexibility by summing items for the purpose of clas-
sifying family system types. Olson et al. (1982) reported alpha reliabilities of .87 for
cohesion and .78 for adaptability, and in this study, FACES II produced acceptable
Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for both dimensions of family functioning (see Table 1).

Data Analysis
To test the first six hypotheses, Pearson product–moment correlations were obtained.
In order to provide more conservative estimates of the associations among the
measures included in this study, two items from the adaptability sub-scale of FACES II
were dropped from correlation analyses because they specifically asked about partici-
pants’ perceptions of their family expressiveness (revised M = 37.92, SD = 6.62, α
= .79). To answer the first research question, two separate multiple regression models
were obtained using expressiveness, structural traditionalism, and conflict avoidance as
predictor variables and family cohesion and the revised adaptability scores as separate
criterion variables. In order to provide the fullest explanation of how family commu-
nication schemata contribute to family functioning, hierarchical regression was
employed to test for possible interaction effects (Aiken & West, 1991).
To answer the second research question, discriminant analysis was employed to
determine the extent to which a linear combination of expressiveness, structural
traditionalism, and conflict avoidance differentiates among the family system types
identified by the circumplex model. Consistent with the national norms reported for
adolescents on FACES II, participants were classified into one of 11 family system
types2 using their scores on the original versions of FACES II and the cutoff values
reported by Olson et al. (1982).

Results
The first two hypotheses predicted positive associations among perceptions of family
expressiveness and perceptions of both family cohesion and flexibility. Pearson prod-
uct–moment correlations revealed that family expressiveness is positively associated
with family cohesiveness (r = .71, p < .01) and family flexibility (r = .68, p < .01). Thus,
the first two hypotheses were supported.
Hypotheses 3 through 6 predicted inverse associations among perceptions of struc-
tural traditionalism and avoidance, and both dimensions of family functioning. Again,
Pearson product–moment correlations provided evidence in support of all four
hypotheses, as structural traditionalism is inversely associated with both family cohe-
siveness (r = −.24, p < .01) and family flexibility (r = −.36, p < .01). Likewise, conflict
avoidance is inversely associated with both family cohesiveness (r = −.37, p < .01) and
family flexibility (r = −.29, p < .01) as well.
The first research question inquired as to how all three dimensions of family
communication schemata contribute to both dimensions of family functioning. Using
family cohesiveness as the criterion variable, a hierarchical regression analysis
produced a significant multiple correlation coefficient, R = .72, F(3, 422) = 148.05,
368 P. Schrodt
MSE = 44.56, p < .01, accounting for 51% of the total variance in perceptions of family
cohesiveness. At step one, examination of the beta weights revealed that family expres-
siveness (β = .66, t = 17.85, p < .01) and conflict avoidance (β = −.10, t = −2.54, p
= .012) were the only significant predictors in the model. At step two, there were no
significant interaction effects for family cohesiveness.
The second hierarchical regression analysis, using family flexibility as the criterion
variable, produced a significant multiple correlation coefficient. At step one, the
model accounted for 50% of the total variance in family flexibility, R = .71, F(3, 422)
= 140.73, MSE = 22.06, p < .01, as family expressiveness (β = .64, t = 17.12, p < .01)
and structural traditionalism (β = −.23, t = −6.00, p < .01) emerged as the only signif-
icant predictors in the model. At step two, an interaction effect of expressiveness and
structural traditionalism was statistically significant, F-change (1, 421) = 22.51, p
< .01, R2-change = .025, bringing the total variance accounted for in the model to
52.5%. This interaction effect was plotted according to the procedures described by
Aiken and West (1991; see Figure 1). Examination of the beta weights revealed that
family expressiveness (β = .65, t = 17.73, p < .01), structural traditionalism (β = −.20,
t = −5.14, p < .01), and the interaction effect (β = .16, t = 4.75, p < .01) were signifi-
cant predictors in the model. Apparently, family expressiveness moderates the rela-
tionship between structural traditionalism and perceptions of family flexibility as
evidenced by the positive interaction term. Structural traditionalism in the presence
of moderate to high levels of family expressiveness has less of a negative impact on
perceptions of family flexibility than structural traditionalism with little to no family
expressiveness.
Figure 1 Interaction between Perceptions of Family Expressiveness and Structural Traditionalism for Family Flexibility.
Flexibility

Low High
Structural Traditionalism

High Expressiveness
Moderate Expressiveness
Low Expressiveness

Figure 1 Interaction between Perceptions of Family Expressiveness and Structural Traditionalism for Family
Flexibility.
 Western Journal of Communication 369
The second research question inquired as to how well family communication sche-
mata differentiate among the family system types identified by the circumplex model.
Discriminant analysis was used to determine if participants classified as members of
one of 11 family system types differed in terms of their perceptions of family expres-
siveness, structural traditionalism, and conflict avoidance. Multivariate analysis
revealed that the first discriminant function, R2c =94.9, Wilks’ λ = .33, χ2(30) =
449.92, p < .01, and the second discriminant function, R2c =3.2, Wilks’ λ = .91, χ2(18)
= 37.54, p < .01, reliably differentiated among the family system types. The third
discriminant function was not statistically significant. Structure weights and stan-
dardized canonical coefficients for both functions are presented in Table 2. For the
first discriminant function, the best discriminator among the 11 family system types
in a positive direction was family expressiveness (.95), while structural traditionalism
contributed much less to the first function in a negative direction (−.24). For the
second discriminant function, the best discriminator among the system types in a
positive direction was structural traditionalism (1.02), followed by expressiveness
(.24) and conflict avoidance (−.19) to much lesser degrees. An examination of classifi-
cation statistics revealed that 38.7% of the original grouped cases were correctly classi-
fied. Following the guidelines of Huberty (1984), the researcher calculated the
proportional chance criterion (.13) and then compared the overall number of
observed frequencies in the classification table (o = 159) with the number of cases
correctly classified by chance (e = 53.13). The number of participants correctly classi-
fied by both discriminant functions was significantly greater than the number
correctly classified by chance (z = 15.57, p < .01).

Discussion
Using Koerner and Fitzpatrick’s (2002a) general theory of family communication,
the principal goal of this research was to extend Olson’s (2000) circumplex model by
examining the ways in which family communication schemata facilitate family func-
tioning in terms of cohesiveness and flexibility. In general, the results suggest that
perceptions of family expressiveness, structural traditionalism, and conflict avoid-
ance are associated with perceptions of family cohesiveness and flexibility, and may

Table 2 Structure Loadings and Standardized Canonical Coefficients for Discriminant

Analysis
Function 1 Function 2

1. Expressiveness .967 .239

(.948) (.239)
2. Structural traditionalism −.288 .944
(−.236) (1.105)
3. Avoidance of conflict −.321 .081
(−.046) (−.191)

Note: Standardized canonical coefficients are in parentheses.

370 P. Schrodt
indeed help facilitate family functioning, though in different ways and to different
degrees.
The first two hypotheses predicted positive associations among family expressive-
ness and both dimensions of family functioning. Consistent with previous research
(e.g., Perosa & Perosa, 2001), the results suggest that perceptions of family expressive-
ness have a sizable, direct association with perceptions of family cohesiveness and flex-
ibility. Representing a conversation orientation in families (Ritchie, 1991),
expressiveness appears to be a key element of a family’s communication environment
that facilitates optimal levels of family functioning. When family members believe in
the free and open exchange of information, ideas, and feelings, emotional bonding is
more likely to occur and the family system is more likely to accommodate changes in
role relationships and relationship rules.
In terms of structural traditionalism and conflict avoidance, however, the results are
quite different. Hypotheses 3 through 6 predicted inverse associations among the
remaining two dimensions of family communication schemata and perceptions of
family cohesiveness and flexibility. All four hypotheses were supported, as structural
traditionalism and conflict avoidance are inversely associated with both dimensions of
family functioning. Whereas expressiveness represents a conversation orientation in
the family, structural traditionalism and conflict avoidance represent two related, but
distinct dimensions of a conformity orientation in the family (Fitzpatrick & Ritchie,
1994; Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002c). Specifically, structural traditionalism refers to the
extent to which families adhere to well-defined role expectations, expectations that are
legitimated by authoritative sources outside of the family (i.e., societal expectations)
(Fitzpatrick & Ritchie, 1994). Since this dimension references a family’s tendency to
adhere to pre-specified roles and relationship rules, by definition, it should be inversely
associated with a family’s ability to embrace changes in role expectations and relation-
ship rules, and such was the case. Likewise, conflict avoidance is also considered part of
a conformity orientation within the family, one in which family members avoid
disagreements and tension by either suppressing unpleasant topics or by enforcing
conformity. As such, the more family members believe in avoiding certain topics of
discussion, the less likely family members may be to embrace change to the family
system. This, in turn, may impede further emotional bonding among family members,
which may explain, in part, the inverse associations among both conformity dimen-
sions and the cohesiveness dimension of family functioning.
Although the circumplex model posits that family communication facilitates family
functioning, to date, researchers have yet to examine the ways in which various
communication constructs combine to contribute to family functioning. Thus, the first
research question explored this very issue. The results for family cohesiveness suggest
that family communication schemata account for more than 50% of the variance in
cohesiveness, though expressiveness and conflict avoidance emerge as the only signifi-
cant predictors in the model. In other words, young adult children who perceive that
their family members believe in the free and open exchange of thoughts and feelings,
and at the same time believe in addressing (rather than avoiding) unpleasant topics and
points of contention, are more likely to perceive stronger emotional bonds among
 Western Journal of Communication 371
family members. These results are meaningful, given that family communication sche-
mata are cognitive frameworks that guide family interaction, which in turn facilitates
optimal family functioning according to the circumplex model.
In terms of family flexibility, however, the results are somewhat different. Although
family expressiveness emerges again as a rather substantial predictor of family flexibil-
ity, contrary to the results for family cohesion, structural traditionalism emerges as the
second predictor of family flexibility. It stands to reason that family members’ beliefs
in the free and open exchange of information, ideas, and feelings would be equally asso-
ciated with both the emotional bonding of family members and the family’s ability to
accommodate changes in role relationships and relationship rules. In fact, the very
notion of flexibility is grounded in the family system’s ability to exchange the infor-
mation necessary for change. Likewise, one might expect that a schema of structural
traditionalism, grounded in a conformity orientation in the family (Fitzpatrick &
Ritchie, 1994; Koerner & Fitzpatrick, 2002a, 2002c), would have a negative impact on
perceptions of family flexibility, especially among young adult children.
Perhaps the most interesting finding to emerge from the present study, then, is the
interaction effect of family expressiveness and structural traditionalism for family flex-
ibility. Evidently, family expressiveness moderates the negative influence of structural
traditionalism on family flexibility, such that structural traditionalism in the presence
of moderate to high levels of family expressiveness has less of a negative impact on
perceptions of flexibility than structural traditionalism in the presence of little to no
family expressiveness. These results are meaningful when considered in light of the
types of families identified by researchers investigating family communication patterns
(e.g., McLeod & Chaffee, 1972; Ritchie, 1991). According to these researchers, protec-
tive families de-emphasize the conversation orientation in the family (i.e., expressive-
ness), emphasizing instead obedience and conformity through overt compliance to
parental authority (i.e., structural traditionalism). Consensual families, on the other
hand, emphasize both a conversation and a conformity orientation in the family. When
the results of the present study are extended to this line of research, it stands to reason
that the interaction effect of expressiveness and structural traditionalism may help
further explain differences in family functioning among protective and consensual
families, at least in terms of family flexibility. Consequently, future research is needed
to examine the interaction effects of other communication constructs that both
contribute to and hinder optimal levels of family functioning.
The final goal of this research was to determine the extent to which expressiveness,
structural traditionalism, and conflict avoidance differentiate among the family system
types identified by the circumplex model (RQ2). Results of the discriminant analysis
suggest that all three dimensions reliably differentiate among 11 of the family types
represented in the current sample, though family expressiveness is primarily responsi-
ble for differentiating among the system types, accounting for most of the canonical
variance in the analysis. Structural traditionalism provides additional information
useful for differentiating among family system types, though the degree to which it
differentiates among the types is marginal at best. Apparently, family expressiveness is
necessary for family functioning on both dimensions of cohesion and flexibility, and
372 P. Schrodt
therefore, serves as the primary schema that facilitates family functioning and distin-
guishes among different family system types. Although structural traditionalism and
conflict avoidance provide additional information, these communication schemata
represent two distinct, but related dimensions of a conformity orientation in the family
that contributes in different ways to family functioning, with one predicting family
cohesion and the other predicting family flexibility. Consequently, it stands to reason
that expressiveness would emerge as the primary contributor to family functioning,
though future research and replication is needed to verify these conclusions, especially
in light of the differences in reliability among the three measures of the FCEI.
In general, the results of this study provide a number of theoretical implications and
directions for future research. First, the results extend Olson’s (2000) circumplex
model by identifying specific dimensions of communication that facilitate family
functioning. Not only do all three dimensions of family communication schemata
contribute to perceptions of family cohesion and flexibility, but the way in which they
contribute and the extent is somewhat different for each dimension of family function-
ing. By extension, the results also lend further support to Koerner and Fitzpatrick’s
(2002a) theory of family communication. Their theory is grounded in relational sche-
mas, or cognitive frameworks, that provide a basis for understanding family interaction
and for interpreting messages about the family. Given that these cognitive frameworks
are associated with family functioning, the results tend to suggest that optimal psycho-
logical functioning for both individual family members and the family as a whole may
be grounded, in part, in their respective belief systems about communication in the
family. Finally, the present study lends further support to the validity of the FCEI, as
well as to the tripartite structure of expressiveness, structural traditionalism, and
conflict avoidance. Fitzpatrick and Ritchie (1994) questioned whether this tripartite
structure would hold up in future research, especially in light of the fact that both struc-
tural traditionalism and conflict avoidance represent a conformity orientation in the
family. The results of this study suggest that structural traditionalism and conflict
avoidance do indeed predict different aspects of family functioning, and in different
ways (e.g., the interaction effect), further confirming the tripartite structure of family
communication schemata.
Despite the contributions of this study, however, the results should be interpreted
within the limitations of the research design. An obvious limitation involves the use of
a predominantly white, college-educated sample of young adult children. Not only are
the current findings limited to the perspective of only one family member, researchers
may question the extent to which ethnic homogeneity influenced the results. Thus,
future researchers might address this limitation by obtaining multiple family member
reports and by collecting a more diverse sample of families.
Future researchers might also extend the results of the present study by examining
other communication constructs that facilitate and/or hinder family functioning. For
example, Caughlin (2003) recently identified a number of family communication stan-
dards that moderate the associations among topic avoidance, maintenance behaviors,
and family satisfaction. Given moderate associations among family communication
standards and family communication schemata (Caughlin, 2003), future researchers
 Western Journal of Communication 373
might examine which standards are most closely associated with family cohesion and
flexibility. Through these types of investigations, family communication scholars can
begin to shed more light on the extent to which communication facilitates family func-
tioning within the circumplex model.

Notes
[1] The initial sample consisted of 474 young adults from a variety of families in the Midwest.
Since members of single-parent families (n = 33) and stepfamilies (n = 15) were under-repre-
sented in the current sample, participant responses from these family types were excluded
from further analysis.
[2] Five of the family system types identified by the circumplex model were under-represented in
the current sample and were therefore excluded from the discriminant analysis.

References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Anderson, S. A. (1986). Cohesion, adaptability, and communication: A test of an Olson circumplex
model hypothesis. Family Relations, 35, 289–293.
Barnes, H. L., & Olson, D. H. (1985). Parent–adolescent communication and the circumplex model.
Child Development, 56, 438–447.
Caughlin, J. P. (2003). Family communication standards: What counts as excellent family communi-
cation and how are such standards associated with family satisfaction? Human Communication
Research, 29, 5–40.
Farrell, M. P., & Barnes, G. M. (1993). Family systems and social support: A test of the effects of
cohesion and adaptability on the functioning of parents and adolescents. Journal of Marriage
and the Family, 55, 119–132.
Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1988). Between husbands and wives. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Fitzpatrick, M. A., & Ritchie, L. D. (1994). Communication schemata within the family: Multiple
perspectives on family interaction. Human Communication Research, 20, 275–301.
Huberty, C. J. (1984). Issues in the use and interpretation of discriminant analysis. Psychological
Bulletin, 95, 156–171.
Johnson, H. D. (2002). Associations among family adaptability and cohesion, interparental conflict,
and tactics used during young adults’ conflict with parents. Psychological Reports, 91, 315–325.
Koerner, A. F., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1997). Family type and conflict: The impact of conversation orien-
tation and conformity orientation on conflict in the family. Communication Studies, 48, 59–75.
Koerner, A. F., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (2002a). Toward a theory of family communication. Communi-
cation Theory, 12, 70–91.
Koerner, A. F., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (2002b). You never leave your family in a fight: The impact of
families of origins on conflict-behavior in romantic relationships. Communication Studies, 53,
234–251.
Koerner, A. F., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (2002c). Understanding family communication patterns and
family functioning: The roles of conversation orientation and conformity orientation. In W.
B. Gundykunst (Ed.), Communication yearbook 26 (pp. 36–68). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
McLeod, J. M., & Chaffee, S. H. (1972). The construction of social reality. In J. Tedeschi (Ed.), The
social influence processes (pp. 50–59). Chicago, IL: Aldine-Atherton.
Olson, D. H. (1986). Circumplex model VII: Validation studies and FACES III. Family Process, 25,
337–351.
374 P. Schrodt
Olson, D. H. (2000). Circumplex model of marital and family systems. Journal of Family Therapy, 22,
144–167.
Olson, D. H., Portner, J., & Bell, R. (1982). FACES II. In D. H. Olson, H. I. McCubbin, H. Barnes,
A. Larsen, M. Muxen, & M. Wilson’s (Eds.), Family inventories: Inventories used in a national
survey of families across the family life cycle (pp. 5–24). St Paul: University of Minnesota,
Family Social Science.
Olson, D. H., Russell, C. S., & Sprenkle, D. H. (1983). Circumplex model of martial and family
systems: VI. Theoretical update. Family Process, 22, 69–83.
Olson, D. H., Sprenkle, D. H., & Russell, C. S. (1979). Circumplex model of marital and family
systems: I. Cohesion and adaptability dimensions, family types, and clinical applications.
Family Process, 18, 3–28.
Perosa, L. M., & Perosa, S. L. (2001). Adolescent perceptions of cohesion, adaptability, and commu-
nication: Revisiting the circumplex model. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for
Couples and Families, 9, 407–419.
Planalp, S. (1985). Relational schemata: A test of alternative forms of relational knowledge as guides
to communication. Human Communication Research, 12, 3–29.
Ritchie, L. D. (1991). Family communication patterns: An epistemic analysis and conceptual reinter-
pretation. Communication Research, 18, 548–565.
Ritchie, L. D., & Fitzpatrick, M. A. (1990). Family communication patterns: Measuring intra-
personal perceptions of interpersonal relationships. Communication Research, 17, 523–544.
Wicks, R. H. (1992). Schema theory and measurement in mass communication research: Theoretical
and methodological issues in news information processing. In S. A. Deetz (Ed.), Communication
yearbook 15 (pp. 115–145). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Yahav, R. (2002). External and internal symptoms in children and characteristics of the family
system: A comparison of the linear and circumplex models. The American Journal of Family
Therapy, 30, 39–56.

Appendix A
Fitzpatrick and Ritchie’s (1994) Family Communication Environment Instrument (FCEI)
Expressiveness
1. My parents often ask my opinion when the family is talking about something.
2. My parents encourage me to challenge their ideas and beliefs.
3. I usually tell my parents what I am thinking about things.
4. I can tell my parents almost anything.
5. My parents encourage me to express my feelings.
6. In our family, we often talk about our feelings and emotions.
7. In our family, we often talk about our plans and hopes for the future.
8. My family reassures and comforts me when I am feeling low.
9. We tell each other how much we love or care about each other.
10. My parents like to hear my opinions, even when they don’t agree with me.

Structural traditionalism
1. When anything really important is involved, my parents expect me to obey without
question.
2. In our home, my parents usually have the last word.
 Western Journal of Communication 375
3. My parents feel that it is important to be the boss.
4. When I am at home, I am expected to obey my parents’ rules.
5. My parents often say things like ‘You’ll know better when you grow up.’
6. My parents often say things like ‘My ideas are right and you should not question
them.’
7. My parents often say things like ‘A child should not argue with adults.’
8. My parents sometimes become irritated with my views if they are different from
theirs.
9. A woman should take her husband’s last name when she marries.

Avoidance
1. My parents often say things like ‘There are some things that just shouldn’t be talked
about.’
2. My parents often say things like ‘You should give in on arguments rather than risk
making people mad.’
3. Some issues will disappear if two people can just avoid arguing about them.
4. It is better to hide one’s true feelings in order to avoid hurting a family member.
5. In a family, it is better to avoid conflicts than to engage in them.
6. If my parents don’t approve of it they don’t want to know about it.

Appendix B
Olson et al.’s (1982) Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales II©
Family cohesiveness
1. Family members are very supportive of each other during difficult times.
2. Family members feel very close to each other.
3. It is easier to discuss problems with people outside the family than with other family
members. (−)
4. In our family, everyone goes his/her own way. (−)
5. Family members feel close to people outside the family than to other family
members. (−)
6. Family members pair up rather than do things as a total family. (−)
7. Our family does things together.
8. Family members like to spend their free time with each other.
9. Our family gathers together in the same room.
10. Family members know each other’s close friends.
11. Family members avoid each other at home. (−)
12. We approve of each other’s friends.
13. We have difficulty thinking of things to do as a family. (−)
14. Family members consult other family members on their decisions.
15. Family members share interests and hobbies with each other.
16. Family members go along with what the family decides to do.
376 P. Schrodt
Family adaptability (or flexibility)
1. In our family, it is easy for everyone to express his/her opinion.*
2. Family members say what they want.*
3. Each family member has input in major family decisions.
4. In solving problems, the children’s suggestions are followed.
5. Children have a say in their discipline.
6. Discipline is fair in our family.
7. Family members are afraid to say what is on their minds. (−)
8. Family members discuss problems and feel good about the solutions.
9. Our family tries new ways of dealing with problems.
10. We shift household responsibilities from person to person.
11. It is hard to know what the rules are in our family.
12. When problems arise, we compromise.
13. In our family, everyone shares responsibilities.
14. It is difficult to get a rule changed in our family. (−)
Note: Reprinted with permission of David H. Olson and Life Innovations, Inc.®
*These two items were dropped from correlation analyses.